transnational migration research - sage publications ltd | · pdf filegordon, 1964). although...

Sociopedia.isa© 2012 The Author(s)

© 2012 ISA (Editorial Arrangement of Sociopedia.isa)Derya Ozkul, 2012, ‘Transnational migration research, Sociopedia.isa, DOI: 10.1177/2056846012111

1

Transnationalism has gained increasing attentionacross a wide spectrum of scholarship ranging fromsocial movement studies (see Keck and Sikkink, 1998;Tarrow, 2005) to feminist sexuality scholarship (seeGrewal and Kaplan, 2001; Povinelli and Chauncey,1999). In this entry, my focus is on transnationalismin migration studies. Transnationalism is oftenlikened to globalization processes, and critiqued as a‘hollow concept’ (Waldinger and Fitzgerald, 2004).However, a growing transnationalism scholarship con-tends that it provides a new lens to understand thechanging dynamics of the contemporary world (Levittand Jaworsky, 2007). Transnational perspectives, dis-tinct from globalization studies, focus on networksestablished across different geographies.

In this article I will first outline the difference thattransnationalism makes to the study of migration bycomparing it to globalization and diaspora studies;second, I will explore the transnational migrationresearch from a historical perspective; and third,review some of the critiques of transnationalism withregard to its extent, its novelty and theoreticalstrength. Throughout the article, I will use the con-cept of ‘transnational networks’ in order to explain thelinks emerging across nation-states in economic,political, religious and/or sociocultural fields. Inmigration studies, networks include those of migrantswho are involved in these fields across borders. I willrefer to ‘transnational persons’ in order to define theones who establish these networks in continuous

terms. The extent of transnationalism may differdepending on its frequency and institutionalization.Later I will elaborate on migrant transnationalism in anetwork society, followed by suggesting transnational-ism’s contributions to social enquiry. Finally, I willassess the literature and discuss the possible futuredirections for social research.

Globalization, diaspora and transnationalism

A transnational perspective in studies of migration isdistinct from diaspora and globalization studies.Globalization studies concentrate either on economicprocesses (Held and McGrew, 2007), or on effects ofa particular global product over specific locations(Appadurai, 2001). Furthermore, globalization stud-ies assume a dichotomy between ‘the global’ and ‘thelocal’. ‘The global’ may be either good or bad for ‘thelocal’, yet the former is always greater than the latter.A globalization perspective in migration studies isconcerned with the global scale and effects of migrantflows in various localities. Diaspora studies take a his-torical account and are concerned with the issues ofculture and identity (Clifford, 1994; Cohen, 2008;Van Hear, 1998; Vertovec, 2000) for diasporas creat-ing new communities in places away from their coun-tries of origin and ancestral lands. It is important tonote that, in order to qualify as a diaspora, they

Transnational migrationresearchDerya Ozkul University of Sydney, Australia

abstract This article introduces transnationalism as distinct from globalization and diaspora. It firstexplores transnationalism research from a historical perspective. The next section reviews some of thecritiques of transnationalism with regard to its extent, its novelty and theoretical strength. Later itelaborates on transnationalism in a network society, and suggests how the exploration of transnationalismhas contributed to social enquiry. Finally it assesses the literature and discusses the possible futuredirections for social research.

keywords migration ◆ nation-states ◆ networks ◆ origin-country perspective ◆ transnationalism

2

Ozkul Transnational migration

should be still involved in those lands in politicalterms.

Unlike these two fields of enquiry, transnational-ism studies focus on the ‘flows’ themselves.Transnationalism studies explore networks pertinentto individuals across borders (Levitt, 2001;Mazzucato, 2008; Smith and Guarnizo, 1998;Vertovec, 2009). Transnationalism refers less tolocality – such as that of ‘country of origin’ and‘country of destination’ – than to the connectionsestablished by migrants. This means that migranttransnationalism involves not just networks estab-lished between countries of origin and destination,but also connections and flows across other geogra-phies. Networks that migrants establish elsewhere,apart from their country of origin or destination, arealso important from a transnational perspective.Whereas in diaspora studies migrants’ identity andbelongings are ‘fixated’ into one place and society,transnationalism studies reveal that migrants’ attach-ments are ‘flexible’ and that their belongings are‘fluid’.

The focus on transnational flows and networks,however, does not suggest that these processes are‘beyond’ the nation-state. Inherent in the very con-cept of ‘transnationalism’ is the ‘nation’. Unlike theassumption that globalization leads to the witheringof nation-states, scholars assert that transnationalnetworks, in fact, constitute the nation-state’s veryexistence (Smith, 2001). Researchers of transnation-alism argue that citizens increasingly establish andmaintain contact with nation-states, and that theseforms of relationships are continuously changing.Transnationalism does not imply a debilitatingimpact on nation-states. Rather, it insists that therelationship between transnational migrants and thenation-state develops in relation to each other andproliferates.

Transnationalism: A historical perspective

Emergence of transnational migrationstudies As early as the 1910s, Rundolph Bourne used theconcept of ‘Transnational America’ to depict immi-grants’ entry into a new American life (Bourne,1916: 90–91). Even though research carried out ear-lier already alluded to transnational connections,transnational migration studies did not develop as anew subdiscipline until the early 1990s, when acadre of migration specialists began to pay specialattention to transnationalism. The research conduct-ed from the early 1990s underlined that migrantscould be active in two distinct countries.

Transnational migrants’ participation in multiplenetworks across countries did not pose a problem totheir integration in their countries of residence(Basch et al., 1994; Glick Schiller et al., 1992;Portes, 1999; Portes et al., 1999). This goes againstthe conventional assimilation theory, which arguedthat as immigrants adapt to their new country of res-idence, their connections with their country of ori-gin would diminish over time (Alba and Nee, 1997;Gordon, 1964). Although the assimilation literatureunderwent various revisions and extensions (Albaand Nee, 2003; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Portesand Zhou, 1993; Waldinger and Feliciano, 2004), itnever addressed migrants’ relations with their placesof origin with the same analytical focus as transna-tionalism studies.

Later developments: Simultaneity andprocesses of transformation Transnational migration research in the 2000sbrought new understandings. While earlier research(Basch et al., 1994) had defined transnationalism asa multidimensional process of social relations estab-lished by migrants across countries of origin and ofdestination, research conducted in the 2000s provedthat networks created by migrants were not limitedonly to their countries of origin, but extended also tocommunities of the same ethnic or religious back-grounds in other countries.

Furthermore, researchers suggested that transna-tional networks were taking shape within fluid socialspaces and were reproducing and creating ‘the being’in two places simultaneously (Levitt, 2001; Pries,2005; Smith, 2005; see also the special issue ofInternational Migration Review 37(3)). The transna-tional migrant, as researchers point out, ‘links thedifferent contexts and contributes to changes inboth’ (Schuerkens, 2005: 534, in Vertovec, 2009).Consequently, non-migrants are also drawn intothese processes of change through their interactionswith migrants. In other words, even non-migrantsare influenced by new ideas and life arrangementsacquired and brought by migrants (Levitt, 2001).Therefore, particularly in migration research,transnationalism is not to be limited to immigranttransnationalism, as it encompasses wider processesand other participants as well.

Steven Vertovec argues that if these changes leadto enduring structural changes, they need to beanalysed as ‘processes of transformation’: ‘Whensuch processes accumulate to alter fundamentallysome key societal structures, we can designate themas forms of significant transformation’ (Vertovec,2009: 24). In order to consider all practices involved,he argues that transnationalism should be analysedalong four dimensions of transformation (Vertovec,

3


2004a, 2009): the economic, political, socioculturaland religious. Each of these domains ought to beexamined – even if they are distinctly categorized –in relation to each other.

Fur ther developments: Transnationalsocial spacesAnother field of enquiry emerging in the 2000s wasin ‘transnational social spaces’. Researchers led byThomas Faist (Faist, 2000) in the Bielefeld sociologyschool, Manchester-pioneering anthropologists(Schiller and Levitt, 2004) and social geographers(Voigt-Graf, 2004) accomplished some of the pio-neering works. Before I explain these works ingreater detail, I shall clarify what is meant by ‘place’and ‘social space’.

‘Place’ can be a microsociological concept refer-ring either to a material geographical location or toidentification of an individual to a location (Wasson,2007). ‘Space’, however, refers to a form of socialorganization wherein individuals establish spatialrelationships with their environment, which enablesor constrains their behaviour. The concept of socialspace is, on the one hand, related to geography, andon the other hand, ‘beyond geographical place’.Correspondingly, ‘space’ has fallen under the partic-ular purview of human geographers (Tuan andHoelscher, 2001), but increasingly has also becomethe object of enquiry by anthropologists and sociol-ogists.

Research in social geography highlighted howmigrants could produce spaces across two or morecountries (Voigt-Graf, 2004). In instances wheremigrants established various forms of relationshipswith their countries of origin, they create ‘transna-tional social spaces’ across borders at the same timeas they establish social spaces within the borders oftheir destination countries.

From the perspective of the Bielefeld school ofsociologists and Manchester school of anthropolo-gists, research focused only on the destination coun-try was limited. These scholars were keenly awarethat migration processes must necessarily begin fromthe migrant’s country of origin. They contended thatthe changing dynamics in countries of origin had tobe understood first, in order to understand theireffects in countries of destination. The examinationof migratory processes from this dual perspectiveeased the discovery of ‘transnational social spaces’.

Going one step further, Faist (2000) developed atypology outlining the various characteristics anddiverse impacts of transnational social spaces on dif-ferent countries. According to Faist, characteristicscould be (1) weak and short-term resulting in disper-sion and assimilation; (2) strong but short-term lead-ing to transnational exchange and reciprocity; (3) weak

and long-term giving rise to transnational networks;or 4) strong and long-term bringing about transna-tional communities. What forms transnational socialspaces took depended on persons that migrantsinteracted with, as well as on places they lived in.

Peggy Levitt and Nina Glick Schiller employedthe concept of ‘transnational social fields’ in whichnew ideas and new sources were reproduced, andvarious transnational networks intersected with eachother (Schiller and Levitt, 2004). Inspired byBourdieu’s concept of ‘social fields’, Levitt and GlickSchiller brought a theory of power inherent in theemergence and transformation of these networks(Glick Schiller, 2005).

Different scales and forms in researchAside from these conceptual innovations, theresearch also classified transnationalism into differ-ent forms and scales. Smith and Guarnizo (1998)defined transnationalism driven by global capital,media and political institutions as ‘transnationalismfrom above’, and the one emerging from localities as‘transnationalism from below’. State policies thatencourage transnationalism among migratory elitesare an example of ‘transnationalism from above’,while the political mobilization of ‘deterritorialized’migrants (Mahler, 1998) constitutes an instance of‘transnationalism from below’.

For Itzigsohn et al. (1999), continuous and insti-tutionalized transnational activities could be classi-fied as ‘narrow transnationalism’ and intermittentactivities as ‘broad transnationalism’. In their words:‘transnationality in a “narrow” sense refers to thosepeople involved in economic, political, social, or cul-tural practices that involve a regular movement with-in the geographic transnational field, a high level ofinstitutionalization, or constant personal involve-ment. Transnationality in a “broad” sense refers to aseries of material and symbolic practices in whichpeople engage that involve only sporadic physicalmovement between the two countries, a low level ofinstitutionalization, or just occasional personalinvolvement, but nevertheless includes both coun-tries as reference points’ (Itzigsohn et al., 1999: 323).

From a social field perspective, Glick Schiller(2003) made a distinction between ‘ways of being’and ‘ways of belonging’ in transnational social fields.What distinguishes between the two states is that ofconsciousness, that is, whether the migrant involvedis aware of his or her transnational activities. ‘Waysof being’ are the taken-for-granted everyday practicesand social relations (e.g. speaking the language,watching local television in the country of origin).‘Ways of belonging’ refer to the conscious ways inwhich migrants demonstrate their loyalties (e.g.wearing a Christian cross or Jewish star, flying a flag).

4


Given these various transnational forms andscales, the question of how to measure transnational-ism is a vexed one. Some researchers have argued fora method of enumeration: counting transnationalactivities such as the number of international visitsper year or the frequency and amount of financialremittances, etc. Others have argued that certaininteractions cannot simply be enumerated. Rather,transnationalism should be analysed in its entirety ineconomic, social, cultural and religious domains,even if some of the interactions are hard to calculate(Mahler and Hansing, 2005; Schiller and Levitt,2004). For instance, Levitt (2003) emphasized thekey role that religion played in transnational net-works, which required closer investigation.

Critiques of transnationalism

As the concept of transnationalism gained attentionin academia, it also raised criticism. Critiques ques-tioned its extent, its novelty and its theoreticalstrength. Below I will specify each of these critiques.

The extent of transnationalism: Anexaggerated phenomenon?Transnationalism has been one of the most used con-cepts to depict the interconnectedness of capital,goods and people since the 1990s. Critiques assertthat the concept has been employed haphazardly.Indeed as a variegated phenomenon, transnational-ism can mean multiple things. As a concept, it con-tinues to require refinement and an agreement overits definition (Waldinger, 2008).

Critiques take issue with the bias inherent intransnationalism research, pointing out the fact thatresearch work was mainly conducted with peoplealready involved in transnational activities whileignoring a large number of migrants who were not(Guarnizo, 2003; Landolt, 2001; Portes, 2001;Smith, 2003). For instance, Alejandro Portes and hiscolleagues showed that many migrants amongDominicans, El Salvadorians and Mexicans in theUS were not involved in transnational activities andthat the ones who were remained only at the levels of10–15% (Portes et al., 2002).

To quote Portes (2003: 877), ‘we have the para-dox that transnationalism, as a new theoretical lensin the field of immigration, is grounded on the activ-ities of only a minority of the members of this pop-ulation’. Waldinger (2008: 25) argued that theliterature of immigrant transnationalism displayedonly a rosy picture. The reality is that ‘the potentialto maintain contacts to the home country (andhometown) is impeded by states’ ever more vigorousefforts to control migratory movements’.

One needs to be careful not to fall into the trapthat all migrants are transnational (Faist, 2000).Transnational persons are the ones who establish,develop and promote economic, political and/orsociocultural networks with other countries. Not allpersons do so and to categorize all migrants underthis umbrella would only be incorrect, if not limited.

Nonetheless, some of the critiques (Portes, 2003)also acknowledged that even if transnational activi-ties comprised only a small part of everyday lives,this would not make them insignificant. These activ-ities would still need further explanation, especiallywhen considering the political, cultural, social andeconomic orientations of second-generationmigrants. As some suggested their disposition totransnationality with their parents’ country of originmay decrease over time (Portes et al., 1999), yet theymay develop new forms of transnational relation-ships with other places.

Another issue that needs to be taken into accountis to conduct research not only with migrants butalso with their relatives and close friends. Social rela-tionships do not occur unilinearly. It is important toanalyse with whom transnational migrants establishtheir networks, and the processes emerging on bothsides.

The novelty of transnationalism:‘Transnational relations always existed’Sociocultural and economic interactions across dif-ferent localities have existed in human history at alltimes, just as transnational migration has existedsince modern nation-states were mapped and creat-ed. The flow and movement of transnationalmigrants across countries of origin and of destina-tion is a long-standing phenomenon. One onlyneeds to turn to anthropological studies for evidenceof families migrating in the early history of nation-state formation.

The Palgrave Encyclopaedia of TransnationalHistory (Iriye and Saunier, 2009) stated that ‘transna-tional migration patterns diverged’ during the era ofimperialism (see the entry ‘empire and migration’).In the Global North peasants left their homes fornewly industrializing places within Europe and theAmericas. Migrants in other parts of the world leftbecause of the political pressures they faced (e.g. theJews in Eastern Europe and Russia). In the GlobalSouth, migrants moved to plantations and mines toseek work. From the 1830s to the 1920s, self-financed traders, forced migrants and labourmigrants began establishing long-distance networkswith their countries of origin.

As early as migration from Asia and Europe to theUS in the 20th century, migrants had begun estab-lishing emotive networks with their left-behinds

5


(Chan, 2006; Morawska, 1999). These networkswere both for economic and psychological assistance.Even in cases where migrants could never visit theircountry of origin, they maintained contact throughletters, post deliveries and then in later times, phonecalls. Research has revealed how these networksplayed a major role in nationalism movements incountries such as Greece, Italy and Armenia(Gabaccia and Ottanelli, 2001; Laliotou, 2004).Certainly there were migrants who could visit theircountry of origin, and in some cases, they returnedfor good (Hatton and Williamson, 1994). But these‘thousands of migrants who returned to their home-lands, including an estimated one quarter of the 16million Europeans who arrived in the United Statesduring the early decades of this [20th] century’, asGmelch (1980: 135) observed, ‘were barely noticedby social scientists’.

Early migrants shared knowledge about theircountries of destination with their families backhome, and allowed some members of their familiesto establish new networks to migrate. Once settledinto their new surroundings, migrants founded asso-ciations to help their left-behinds. These associationschannelled not just economic resources, but alsoprovided support for political and social develop-ments in their home countries. In other words, assis-tance from afar came in the form of both financialand social remittances. But it is important to notethat this was a dual process. Countries of origin wereequally interested in the welfare of their migratingcitizens, and provided support in various ways. Theyprovided a variety of services such as insisting on des-tination countries to look after migrants’ social secu-rity funds, as well as introducing new bank accountsfor them.

Given that these processes and practices werealready well in place, and that migrants, for instance,had always already formed relations with their placesof origin (Waldinger and Fitzgerald, 2004), critiquesquestioned what exactly new does ‘transnationalism’purport to represent.

Indeed, when the transnationalism literaturearose, none of these phenomena were new. Buttransnational practices have, over time, taken differ-ent forms and operated under different scales: themeans of communication between migrants andtheir relatives in contemporary times include, forinstance, the Internet, which intensified the relationsand networks of transnational migrants. These newforms will be elaborated under ‘Transnationalism inthe network society’ below. Christian Joppke andEwa Morawska (2003: 20) summarized that,‘Although not a new phenomenon in the history ofinternational migration, contemporary immigranttransnationalism, of course, is not an exact replica of

the old, but a different configuration of circum-stances.’

Even if the phenomenon itself was not new,bringing the facts together under a new analyticallens was ground-breaking. As Robert Smith (2003:725) states: ‘If transnational life existed in the pastbut was not seen as such, then the transnational lensdoes the new analytical work of providing a way ofseeing what was there that could not be seen before.’

The theoretical strength oftransnationalism: ‘It is not a theory but a paradigm’ Initially Nina Glick Schiller and her colleagues pre-sented transnationalism on the basis that it was nec-essary to create an alternative theory to theories ofassimilation or cultural pluralism (Glick Schiller etal., 1992: 13–19). Portes and his colleagues soughtto offer a middle-range theory of transnationalism(Portes et al., 1999). Some argued that the conceptof ‘transnational’ constitutes a perspective, ratherthan a new theory. Waldinger (2007) defined it as asocial process (inextricably intertwined with assimi-lation). Kivisto (2001) suggested that transnational-ism should be considered as one possible variant ofassimilation. The critiques assert that transnational-ism has not been successful in either repudiating orcomplementing assimilation theory (Kivisto, 2001).However, the debate depends on how one defines atheory. If a theory provides a framework to under-stand a social phenomenon and if one accepts thattransnationalism is a perspective to understand relat-ed transformations (in economic, political, sociocul-tural and religious arenas), one also acknowledgesthat transnationalism does offer a theory. Theories,however, are improved as more evidence is gathered.As mentioned above, transnationalism literature stilllacks clarity over its definition and further data onintergenerational differences. Hence the debate stillremains open.

Transnationalism in the network society

Contemporary communicationtechnologiesWhat needs to be taken into account is that contem-porary communication technologies have a crucialimpact on the scale and intensity of transnationalrelations. Technologies influence the ways migrantsconduct their daily lives (Vertovec, 2004b). Onlinecommunication, for instance, make possible closeand intimate relations across and within borders.One should not ignore the fact that the broadbandaccess in the developing countries of emigration is

6


not as frequent as in the countries of immigration.However it is also clear that today migrants can beincluded in the daily lives of their far-away relativeswith more ease, frequency and convenience than inthe past.

An ethnographic research conducted by MircaMadianou and Daniel Miller revealed how Filipinomigrant women involved themselves in the dailyroutine of their children. Through access to mobilephone facilities, the women monitor their children’shomework and meals, and follow their success atschool on a daily basis (Madianou, 2012). Where upto recently emails were the primary means of com-munication (Wilding, 2006), now many migrantsand their relatives make use of other forms of com-munication (e.g. instant messaging and social net-working sites) to maintain their transnationalrelations. Madianou and Miller (2011) argue thatone needs to conduct ‘a truly transnational research’,in other words, to look at both sides of communica-tion, to fully understand the effects of transnational-ism. Among overseas-based migrant women, theresearchers found that transnational communicationstrengthened the women’s position in their familiesand allowed them to reconstruct their role as parents.The effect of transnational communication on thepart of their children though ambivalent, neverthe-less, required more attention.

Apart from the ways technology facilitates inti-mate relations across geographies and distance, italso aids migrants’ continuous involvement in thelarger political, economic and sociocultural process-es of their countries of origin. In this way, migrantsare able to live in two separate countries simultane-ously, although not in their material geographies.Again, a transnational perspective would stress themutuality of these relationships. As migrants main-tain links with their countries of origin on a dailybasis, so too do their relatives establish relationshipsand understandings with the migrants’ new location.In theory mutual relationships ease the transfer of so-called social and human capital across countries.

Characteristics of contemporary transnationalmigratory flows are multidimensional (Morawska,2007). The migratory processes that are mentionedhere are not transformed only by the developmentsin technology but together with them. Present-daytransnational processes are advanced along withtechnology developments that enable persons to bein two distinct places at the same time. As a result ofcommunicative networks across countries thereemerges a simultaneity of co-habiting. More thananything else, this underscores the point that a geo-graphically based understanding of nation-states andtheir populations must be re-thought.

Remittances and governmental strategiesFinancial remittances are often positioned and per-ceived by local governments as crucial for the devel-opment of countries of origin. Today, countries suchas Pakistan, Nepal, Egypt and the Philippines haveclaimed to be ever more in need of them. Migrantremittances are regarded as a component of interna-tional development funds and are increasingly mon-itored not just by origin countries, but also byinternational organizations (World Bank, 2011).Apart from organizing financial remittances, migranthometown associations also facilitate the construc-tion of schools, hospitals, roads and the creation ofother support organizations.

To attract the channelling of funds and remit-tances back home, governments in countries of ori-gin implement various incentives. The Indiangovernment, for instance, applies high interest rateson the British and US dollar accounts of Indiansabroad. These are complemented by reductions intheir income taxes. Numerous other governmentssuch as the Mexican, Turkish, Colombian or Eritrean(Al-Ali et al., 2001; Fitzgerald, 2000; Guarnizo et al.,1999; Ostergaard-Nielsen, 2001, 2003; Smith,1998) have undertaken similar initiatives.

Wendy Larner (2007: 334) argues that in most ofthe policy documents of international organizationsand economic development agencies, ‘diasporastrategies are now an integral part of a governmentalimaginary in which entrepreneurial, globally net-worked, subjects create new possibilities for econom-ic growth and in doing so contribute to thedevelopment of a knowledge-based economy’. Inseveral migrant-sending countries, such as the case ofthe Philippines, so hegemonic has such a nationalimaginary become that not only have migrantsabroad internalized this ideology, but so too have thelocal population whose aspiration is also to becomemigrant citizens.

Whereas previously the aim for states was to con-vince migrants to return to enrich their territorialsovereignty, today it is to extend their sovereigntyand expand their borders into the global economythrough the members of their diaspora. Looking atthe genealogy of national migration policies, Larner(2007: 342) suggests that the latest ‘diaspora strate-gies represent a new way of thinking abouteconomies, populations and states’. Hence contem-porary policies constitute efforts to create links tocertain migrants whose set of knowledge and compe-tencies can be used in the interests of the neoliberalphase that origin countries are going through.

State institutionalization of transnational migra-tion is not carried out only in the economic field.Contemporary initiatives in the political fieldinclude voting from abroad, double citizenship

7


(Faist, 2007) and its related discussions on whichnation-state one should establish allegiances with. Infact the issue with double citizenship was underdebate since the beginning of the 20th century.However what is different today is that rather thanrejecting the notion of double citizenship, nation-states acknowledge the demand and the need for it.In particular, origin countries take it on their agendasooner with the primary motive being that citizensliving abroad could bring them an added value ineconomic and political terms.

Transnationalism’s contributions tosocial sciences

It is as crucial to understand the mechanisms oftransnational processes, as it is to understand theircontributions to social science enquiry.

Researching the flowsTransnationalism brought a new perspective to socialsciences by focusing on the ‘flows’ across borders.Research work particularly in migration studies hasmostly been conducted within national borders duein part to policy-oriented research funded by nation-al governments. Seen within the container of nation-al borders, migratory processes were divided intopre-departure, departure, settlement and post-settle-ment phases. These phases were artificially definedon the basis of national regulation, and did notreflect the experiences and real lives of migrants. Onecan say that the early migration research reflected thelogic of Newtonian physics, which considers atoms(in this case nation-states) as distinct from eachother. However, transnationalism, correspondingmore with quantum physics, contends that analysingthe flows and links between nation-states is in factcrucial to understanding the changes within nation-states.

By focusing on the ‘flows’, researchers also recog-nize the need to re-think the concepts of geographi-cal place and social space. As mentioned in theprevious section on ‘transnational social spaces’, con-ceptualization of being in two places evoked newways of understanding geographies. Trans -nationalism, therefore, puts on the agenda new waysto understand notions of citizenship, belonging andidentity. Researching the flows highlights how exist-ing social enquiry has been limited by a narrow focuson national borders, a point to be elaborated in thesubsequent section.

As Stephen Castles (2003: 24) points out: ‘Today,global change and the increasing importance oftransnational processes require new approaches fromthe sociology of migration. These will not develop

automatically out of existing paradigms, because thelatter are often based on institutional and conceptu-al frameworks that may be resistant to change andwhose protagonists may have strong interests in thepreservation of the intellectual status quo.… The keyissue is the analysis of transnational connectednessand the way this affects national societies, local com-munities and individuals.’

Revising methodological nationalismOne of the biggest contributions of transnationalresearch has been at the methodological level. Agroup of researchers pioneered by Wimmer andSchiller emphasize the limitations caused by what iscalled ‘methodological nationalism’ (Wimmer andSchiller, 2003). Methodological nationalism refers tothe assumption that the social world is constitutedonly within the framework of nation-states.Transnational research, however, showed how per-sons involve themselves in relationships across differ-ent geographical places and borders, and how theserelationships in turn change people’s understandingsof their location. In other words, transnational rela-tionships change the ways in which people experi-ence the place that they reside in and the boundariesof their nation-state.

Following ‘methodological nationalism’ one canargue that state-centric analyses in international rela-tions studies are also inadequate. Particularly inmigration research, dichotomies such as countries oforigin/destination or first/second generation ofmigrants are misleading (Waters and Jimenez, 2005).Just as how transnational migrants develop relation-ships with different persons according to theirresources and aims, the ways in which different gen-erations organize their relations and networks are notthe same either. It is all too easy to presume that first-generation migrants would establish greater transna-tional networks than second-generation migrants. Inreality, different members in each generation mayhave different loyalties and attachments to theirhome country. This may be through attachmentscreated within migrant communities (transnational-ism from below) or activated by their state institu-tions and business interest groups (transnationalismfrom above).

Dichotomous categorizations also fail to capturethe changing composition of migrant generations,which is never fixed but responsive, for instance, tothe migration policies of destination countries.Castles and Miller (2009) point out that migrationpolicies in destination countries have increasinglyfavoured highly skilled to unskilled migrants. Thismeans that even among same-generation migrants,not all will share the same characteristics. Individualreasons and means of migrating may affect the types

8


of networks established in their home countries, andthe political, economic and sociocultural supportrendered by migrants. Consequently, different sortsof social spaces are created.

Contributing to methodology: Multi-sitedresearchUnderstanding these dynamics of a transnationalprocess suggests the needs for new methodologies tobe developed. Multi-sited research, which studiesseveral sites simultaneously (Marcus, 1995) andshows the ways in which different places are nestedwithin each other, provides a useful starting point.Social enquiry has hitherto been dominated by com-parative research projects investigating subjects inbounded places. Multi-sited research, however,eschews boundaries to show instead the interrela-tions between geographies. Ideally, a research teamfor such a study would consist of researchers situatedat multiple sites to observe the interactions acrosseach site simultaneously (Mazzucato et al., 2006). Inwedding or funeral studies, for instance, multi-sitedresearch would capture the intimacy and complexityof experiences both in the home and host countrybetween migrants and their relatives. One researcher,Valentina Mazzucato, developed a ‘simultaneousmatched sample methodology’ in her research onGhanaian migrants’ transnational networks(Mazzucato, 2009). Her research team, comprisingof several researchers located in different places atone time, examined the circulation of remittancesacross borders to find out the ways in which multi-ple sites are connected to each other.

Assessment of research to date

Transnationalism offers us a new perspective in socialsciences not because it discovers networks that didnot exist before, but because it calls our attention tothe examination of flows that has been largely over-looked. Migrant transnationalism is only one exam-ple of such an enquiry, yet it has made majorcontributions to the field of transnationalism to anenormous extent. This focus on a transnational per-spective brings a new set of questions to bear onsocial enquiry. The future of transnationalism stud-ies, I suggest, should take into account the following:

• Critiques and conceptual clarity: Many of theabove-mentioned criticisms repeat themselves,without taking into consideration even the mostcited/criticized authors’ replies (see in particularGlick Schiller and Levitt, 2006). Researchers willneed to take into account the criticisms chargedat transnationalism before embarking on their

transnational research projects. This is importantto prevent inflating the literature with messy con-cepts that render it vague and irrelevant. • Mutual relationships: Studies need to take intoconsideration both sides of transnational net-works for a complete analysis. This is also neces-sary to explore subsequent developments on eachside. For instance it is impossible to exploreimmigrants’ newly emerging identity politics inEurope without looking at developments both inorigin and destination countries (see for instancethe Kurdish, Yezidi and Alevi diaspora and theirstruggle for recognition). One has to understandthe conditions in the origin country, as well as thenew orientations in the destination country. • Generational differences: Despite two decades ofengagement, the literature still falls behindexploring generational differences. The argumentthat transnationalism would fade out with assim-ilation to the new country has proven to be lim-ited, as shown by above-mentioned studies. Thestudies also demonstrate that not all migrants aretransnational. One needs to explore the ways inwhich the subsequent generations establishtransnational networks with their parents’ coun-try of origin, as well as with other countries, ifany. • Comparative studies with mixed methods: Theliterature also falls behind embarking on compar-ative studies and on research using mixed meth-ods. Most of the earlier research composed ofdetailed case studies using ethnography.Comparative research can explore both diver-gences and convergences, and distinguish thedetermining factors. Research employing mixedmethods can make use of various forms of data. Relationship with other fields of enquiry:While theliterature has provided useful definitions oftransnational networks, there is no thoughtfulanalysis of what they mean for the definitions ofrelated concepts (such as nationality and citizen-ship, national modes of governance and geogra-phies). If transnationalism is a phenomenon/asocial process, it is important to understand thedynamics it alters in other social processes. Thechanges in citizenship that is traditionally basedon a territorial understanding are linked to thechanges in practices of sovereignty. Interdisciplinarity: Finally to account for all these,transnational research projects should employinterdisciplinary approaches to understand thechanges in different fields.

9


Annotated further reading

Al-Ali NS and Koser K (2002) New Approaches toMigration? Transnational Communities and theTransformation of Home. London and New York:Routledge.This edited book evaluates the meaning of ‘home’ fortransnational peoples, as ‘globally-oriented identities’emerge. The other themes are transnational spaces’relationship to national and local spaces, as well asimplications in both home and host countries.

Basch L, Glick Schiller N et al. (eds) (1994) NationsUnbound: Transnational Projects, PostcolonialPredicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States.London: Gordon and Breach.This book, one of the early examples oftransnationalism literature, displays that immigrantsbuild social, economic and political networksbetween their countries of origin and destination.The book includes ethnographic studies of migrationand illuminates the challenges to the concepts ofnationhood.

Bauböck, R (1994) Transnational Citizenship:Membership and Rights in International Migration.Aldershot: Edward Elgar.This is one of the early and well-theorized books onthe relationship between transnationalism andcitizenship. Bauböck argues that liberal democraticcitizenship rights ought to expand beyond nationalterritories. This book is predominantly analytical andnormative.

Faist T (2000) The Volume and Dynamics of InternationalMigration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford:Oxford University Press.This book explains the causes, nature and extent ofthe movement between rich and poor countries. Faistasks: Why are there so few international migrants outof most places? And why are there so many out of sofew places? He further analyses the emergence oftransnational social spaces by using examples fromthe Turkish–German case.

Hannerz U (1996) Transnational Connections: Culture,People, Places. London: Routledge.

This book is a good example of transnational culturalconnections between different places around theworld. Hannerz argues that cultural and identity-related studies need to extend beyond nationalborders in an ever-more interconnected world.

Iriye A and Saunier PY (eds) (2009) The PalgraveDictionary of Transnational History. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

This is an excellent resource with numerous entries onmodern social world history. More than 350 authorsstudy the world history not by a chronological orderbut through the interconnectedness of peoples, goodsand capital. They show that the modern history isnot composed of nation-states, but of transnationalcircuits and interconnections.

Levitt P (2001) The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley:University of California Press.This book is based on in-depth fieldwork with

Dominican immigrants in Boston and their relativesin their home country. Levitt examines the ways inwhich the familial, cultural, political and religiousties shape the daily lives in both places. She alsoshows that transnationalism and assimilation arecompatible with each other.

Smith MP and Guarnizo L (eds) (1998) Transnationalismfrom Below. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.In this edited book Smith and Guarnizo’s objective isto distinguish ‘transnationalism from below’, that ismigrants’ conscious efforts to escape, from‘transnationalism from above’, that is multinationalcorporations, global capital flows and statesadvancing neoliberalism.

Vertovec S (2009) Transnationalism. London and NewYork: Routledge.This book first surveys the broader literature oftransnationalism and later focuses on migranttransnationalism. Vertovec, one of the mostexperienced writers in the field, revises his earlierwritings regarding migrants’ transnational practicesand their effects on social, political, economic andreligious transformations.

References

Al-Ali N, Black R and Koser K (2001) The limits to‘transnationalism’: Bosnian and Eritrean refugees inEurope as emerging transnational communities.Ethnic and Racial Studies 24(4): 578–600.

Alba R and Nee V (1997) Rethinking assimilationtheory for a new era of immigration. InternationalMigration Review 31: 826–74.

Alba R and Nee V (2003) Remaking the AmericanMainstream: Immigration and ContemporaryImmigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Appadurai A (ed.) (2001) Globalization. Durham, NC:Duke University Press.

Basch L, Glick Schiller N et al. (eds) (1994) NationsUnbound: Transnational Projects, PostcolonialPredicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States.London: Gordon and Breach.

Bourne RS (1916) Transnational America. The AtlanticMonthly July: 86–97.

Castles S (2003) Towards a sociology of forcedmigration. Sociology 37(1): 13–34.

Castles S and Miller MJ (2009) The Age of Migration:International Population Movements in the ModernWorld, 4th edn. London: Palgrave.

Chan S (2006) Chinese American Transnationalism: TheFlow of People, Resources, and Ideas Between Chinaand America during the Exclusion Era. Philadelphia,PA: Temple University Press.

Clifford J (1994) Diasporas. Current Anthropology 9(3):302–38.

Cohen R (2008) Global Diasporas: An Introduction. NewYork: Routledge.

Connell R (2007) The northern theory of globalisation.Sociological Theory 25(4): 368–85.

10


Faist T (2000) The Volume and Dynamics of InternationalMigration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford:Clarendon.

Faist T (2007) Dual Citizenship in Europe: FromNationhood to Societal Integration. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Fitzgerald D (2000) Negotiating Extra-TerritorialCitizenship: Mexican Migration and the TransnationalPolitics of Community. San Diego: Center forComparative Immigration Studies, University ofCalifornia, San Diego.

Gabaccia DR and Ottanelli FM (2001) Italian Workers ofthe World: Labor Migration and the Formation ofMultiethnic States. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.

Glick Schiller N (2003) The centrality of ethnography inthe study of transnational migration. In: Fraser N(ed.) American Arrivals: Anthropology Engages the NewImmigration. Santa Fe, NM: School of AmericanResearch Press, pp. 99–128.

Glick Schiller N (2005) Transnational social fields andimperialism: Bringing a theory of power toTransnational Studies. Anthropological Theory 5(4):439–61.

Glick Schiller N and Levitt P (2006) Haven’t we heardthis somewhere before? A substantive view oftransnational migration studies by way of a reply toWaldinger and Fitzgerald. Center for Migration andDevelopment Working Paper 06–01, Princeton, NJ.

Glick Schiller N, Basch LG et al. (1992) Towards aTransnational Perspective on Migration: Race, Class,Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York:NY Academy of Sciences.

Gmelch G (1980) Return migration. Annual Review ofAnthropology 9: 135–59.

Gordon M (1964) Assimilation in American Life. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Grewal I and Kaplan C (2001) Global identities:Theorizing transnational studies of sexuality. GLQ: AJournal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7(4): 663–79.

Guarnizo LE (2003) The economics of transnationalliving. International Migration Review 37(3): 666–99.

Guarnizo, LE, Sanchez AI and Roach, E (1999)Mistrust, fragmented solidarity, and transnationalmigration: Colombians in New York and LosAngeles. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22: 367–96.

Hatton TJ and Williamson JG (1994) Migration and theInternational Labor Market: 1850–1939. New York:Routledge.

Held D and McGrew A (eds) (2007) GlobalizationTheory: Approaches and Controversies. London: Polity.

Iriye A and Saunier PY (eds) (2009) The PalgraveDictionary of Transnational History. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

Itzigsohn J, Cabral CD et al. (1999) MappingDominican transnationalism: Narrow and broadtransnational practices. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22:316–39.

Joppke C and Morawska E (2003) Integratingimmigrants in liberal nation-states: Policies andpractices. In: Joppke C and Morawska E (eds)Toward Assimilation and Citizenship. Basingstoke:

Palgrave, pp. 1–36.Kearney M (1995) The local and the global: The

anthropology of globalization and transnationalism.Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 547–65.

Keck M E and Sikkink K (1998) Activists beyond Borders.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Kivisto P (2001) Theorizing transnational immigration:A critical review of current efforts. Ethnic and RacialStudies 24(4): 549–77.

Laliotou I (2004) Transatlantic Subjects: Acts of Migrationand Cultures of Transnationalism between Greece andAmerica. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Landolt I (2001) Salvadoran economic transnationalism:Embedded strategies for household maintenance,immigrant incorporation, and entrepreneurialexpansion. Global Networks 1: 217–42.

Larner W (2007) Expatriate experts and globalisinggovernmentalities: The New Zealand diasporastrategy. Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 32(3): 331–45.

Levitt P (2001) The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Levitt P (2003) ‘You know, Abraham was really the firstimmigrant’: Religion and transnational migration.International Migration Review 37(3): 847–73.

Levitt P and Jaworsky B N (2007) Transnationalmigration studies: Past developments and futuretrends. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 129–56.

Madianou M (2012) Migration and the accentuatedambivalence of motherhood: The role of ICTs inFilipino transnational families. Global Networks12(3): 277–95.

Madianou M and Miller D (2011) Mobile phoneparenting: Reconfiguring relationships betweenFilipina migrant mothers and their left-behindchildren. New Media and Society 13(3): 457–70.

Mahler SJ (1998) Theoretical and empiricalcontributions toward a research agenda fortransnationalism. In: Smith MP and Guarnizo L(eds) Transnationalism from Below. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Books.

Mahler SJ and Hansing K (2005) Toward atransnationalism of the middle: How transnationalreligious practices help bridge the divides betweenCuba and Miami. Latin American Perspectives 32:121–46.

Marcus GE (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system:The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. AnnualReview of Anthropology 24: 95–117.

Mazzucato V (2008) The double engagement:Transnationalism and integration. Ghanaianmigrants‚ lives between Ghana and the Netherlands.Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(2):199–216.

Mazzucato V (2009) Bridging boundaries with atransnational research approach: A simultaneousmatched sample methodology. In: Falzon MA (ed.) AMulti-Sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Localityin Contemporary Social Research. Farnham: Ashgate,pp. 215–32.

Mazzucato V, Kabki M et al. (2006) Transnational

11


migration and the economy of funerals: Changingpractices in Ghana. Development and Change 37(5):1047–72.

Morawska E (1999) The new old transmigrants, theirtransnational lives and ethnicization: A comparisonof 19th/20th and 20th/21st situations. EuropeanUniversity Institute Working Papers EUF No. 99/2,Florence.

Morawska E (2007) Transnationalism. In: Waters M andUeda R (eds) Harvard Encyclopaedia of the NewAmericans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Ostergaard-Nielsen E (2001) Transnational practices andthe receiving state: Turks and Kurds in Germany andthe Netherlands. Global Networks 1: 261–81.

Ostergaard-Nielsen E (2003) The politics of migranttransnational practices. International MigrationReview 37(3): 760–86.

Portes A (1999) Conclusion: Towards a new world – theorigins and effects of transnational activities. Ethnicand Racial Studies 22: 463–77.

Portes A (2001) The debates and significance ofimmigrant transnationalism. Global Networks 1:181–93.

Portes A (2003) Conclusion: Theoretical convergenciesand Empirical evidence in the study of immigranttransnationalism. International Migration Review37(3): 874–92.

Portes A and Rumbaut R (2001) Legacies: The Story ofthe Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Portes A and Zhou M (1993) The new secondgeneration: Segmented assimilation and its variants.The Annals of the American Academy of Political andSocial Science 530: 74–96.

Portes A, Guarnizo LE et al. (1999) The study oftransnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergentresearch field. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22: 217–37.

Portes A, Guarnizo LE et al. (2002) Transnationalentrepreneurs: An alternative form of immigranteconomic adaptation. American Sociological Review67: 278–98.

Povinelli E A and Chauncey G (eds) (1999) Thinkingsexuality transnationally. Special issue of: GLQ: AJournal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 5(4).

Pries L (2005) Configurations of geographic and societalspaces: A sociological proposal between‘methodological nationalism’ and the ‘spaces offlows’. Global Networks 5: 167–90.

Schiller NG and Levitt P (2004) Conceptualizingsimultaneity: A transnational social field perspectiveon society. International Migration Review 38(3):1002–39.

Smith MP (2001) Transnational Urbanism: LocatingGlobalisation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Smith MP (2005) Transnational urbanism revisited.Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31: 235–44.

Smith MP and Guarnizo L (eds) (1998) Transnationalismfrom Below. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Smith RC (1998) Mexican immigrants, the Mexicanstate, and the transnational practice of Mexicanpolitics and membership. USA Forum 24: 19–24.

Smith RC (2003) Diasporic memberships in historicalperspective: Comparative insights from the Mexican,Italian and Polish cases. International MigrationReview 37(3): 724–59.

Tarrow S (2005) The New Transnational Activism. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Tuan YF and Hoelscher S (2001) Space and Place: ThePerspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Van Hear N (1998) New Diasporas. London: UCL Press.Vertovec S (2000) The Hindu Diaspora: Comparative

Patterns. London: Routledge.Vertovec S (2004a) Migrant transnationalism and modes

of transformation. International Migration Review38(3): 970–1001.

Vertovec S (2004b) Cheap calls: The social glue ofmigrant transnationalism. Global Networks 4:219–24.

Vertovec S (2009) Transnationalism. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Voigt-Graf C (2004) Towards a geography oftransnational spaces: Indian transnationalcommunities in Australia. Global Networks 4(1):25–49.

Waldinger R (2007) The bounded community: Turningforeigners into Americans in twenty-first centuryL.A. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(3): 341–74

Waldinger R (2008) Between ‘here’ and ‘there’:Immigrant cross-border activities and loyalties.International Migration Review 42(1): 3–29.

Waldinger R and Feliciano C (2004) Will the newsecond generation experience ‘downwardassimilation’? Segmented assimilation re-assessed.Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(3): 376–402.

Waldinger R and Fitzgerald D (2004) Transnationalismin question. American Journal of Sociology 109:1177–95.

Wasson L (2007) Place. In: Ritzer G (ed.) BlackwellEncyclopaedia of Sociology. Blackwell ReferenceOnline: Blackwell Publishing.

Waters MC and Jimenez TR (2005) Assessing immigrantassimilation: New empirical and theoreticalchallenges. Annual Review of Sociology 31: 105–25.

Wilding R (2006) ‘Virtual’ intimacies? Familiescommunicating across transnational contexts. GlobalNetworks 6(2): 125–42.

Wimmer A and Schiller NG (2003) Methodologicalnationalism, the social sciences, and the study ofmigration: An essay in historical epistemology.International Migration Review 37(3): 576–610.

World Bank (2011) Migration and Remittances Factbook2011. Washington, DC: World Bank.

12


Derya Ozkul is currently a guest researcher at at the Social Science Research Centre Berlin(WZB) and a PhD candidate at the University of Sydney. Her doctoral thesis is a part of a biggerproject titled ‘Social Transformation and International Migration in the 21st Century’, directedby Prof. Stephen Castles. Derya Ozkul holds a Comparative Politics degree from the LondonSchool of Economics. Some of her forthcoming publications include ‘Australia: A classicalimmigration country in transition’ (with Stephen Castles and Ellie Vasta) in Cornelius W, TsudaT, Martin PL and Hollifield JF (eds) Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press. [email: [email protected]]

résumé Cet article présente le transnationalisme distincte de la mondialisation et du diaspora. Ilexplore d’abord la recherche du transnationalisme d’une perspective historique. La section suivante passeen revue certaines des critiques du transnationalisme en ce qui concerne son étendue, sa nouveauté et saforce théorique. Plus tard, il élabore sur le transnationalisme dans une société en réseau, et suggèrecomment l’exploration du transnationalisme a contribué à l’enquête sociale. Enfin, il évalue la littératureet discute les orientations futures possibles pour la recherche sociale.

mots-clés états-nations ◆ migration ◆ réseaux ◆ transnationalisme ◆ vue des pays d’origine

resumen Este artículo analiza el noción de transnacionalismo como uno distinto a la de globalizacióny diáspora. En primer lugar, la investigación sobre transnacionalismo es explorada desde una perspectivahistórica. La siguiente sección revisa algunas de las críticas al transnacionalismo en términos de su alcance,novedad y fuerza teórica. Posteriormente se elabora el noción de transnacionalismo en el contexto de unasociedad en red, analizando cómo la exploración del transnacionalismo ha contribuido a la investigaciónsocial. Por último, se evalúa la literatura existente y se discuten posibles direcciones futuras para lainvestigación social.

palabras clave estados-nación ◆ migración ◆ perspectiva de los países de origen ◆ redes ◆transnacionalismo

transnational migration research - sage publications ltd | · pdf filegordon, 1964). although...

Documents